Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 11.1
Relative return
s from selected crop health management options to land owners and farm laborers
Crop health management options
Cultural
practices
Physical
control
Biological
control
Host plant
resistance
Chemical
pesticides
Factor owners
Biopesticides
Small land owners
3
2
2
2
3
1
Medium land owners
2
2
3
3
3
2
Large land owners
1
3
3
3
3
2
Laborers
3
2
1
2
1
1
Norton (
2010
), modifi ed
3 high, 2 medium, 1 low
1. Mulching, pruning, early harvesting and planting, grafting, rouging, host-free period, hand weeding
2. Soil solarization, hot water treatment, pheromone traps, sticky traps, bagging fruits, hand picking insects,
irradiation
3. Classical biocontrol, augmentative release, exchange or redistribution of natural enemies between regions
4.
Trichoderma, Pseudomonas, Bacillus subtilis
, nuclear polyhedrous virus, Bt, neem, entomopathogenic fungi and
nematodes
5. Conventional and marker-assisted breeding, genetically modifi ed crops
6. Synthetic insecticides, nematicides, fungicides, herbicides. Relative returns in the short and long run may differ, and
these ratings are short run. They also differ by pesticide class
11.3
Enhancing the Impact of IPM
on Crop Health Management
CHM. For example, climate change could impair
the reliability of current CHM strategies, requiring
additional resources to develop new knowledge
systems and appropriate IPM measures to counter
new pests or the intensifi cation of existing ones.
A two-pronged strategy therefore needs to be
developed that would aim at managing current pest
threats more effectively while at the same time lay-
ing a foundation for addressing future threats. Such
a strategy will produce a strong adaptation-devel-
opment synergy (Table
11.2
), particularly in the
developing world where adequate resources to
manage pests are lacking.
In developing long-term investment strategies
for adapting CHM systems to meet future chal-
lenges, the priority should be to undertake com-
prehensive research and assessment of how pest
threats could evolve under climate change and
whether current and emerging IPM technologies
will be adequate to offset these threats to crop
health. This information is notably absent in the
most recent assessment by the IPCC, despite the
threat that biotic stresses pose to future food pro-
duction and food security. In addition, invest-
ments in infrastructure, training, and education
are needed in order to manage existing pest prob-
lems better, as well as to develop suffi cient
knowledge and capacity to aid the crop protec-
tion specialist - and fi nally the farmer - in
responding to new threats.
11.3.1 Scientifi c Solutions
Despite the obvious gains from IPM, the adop-
tion rates of many new and effective technologies
are still low. Research institutions have decades
of experience in IPM, soil fertility research, plant
breeding, agronomy, and socioeconomic research
and are very well positioned to provide science-
based solutions for CHM in developing coun-
tries. To build and expand on past successes,
collaboration among centers, in partnerships
with advanced research institutions and private
industry, has to be fostered and harnessed with
Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Manage-
ment (SP-IPM).
Together, these partners should focus on three
major cross-cutting research areas: climate
change; food, feed, and environmental safety;
and agroecosystem resilience. Within these areas,
the newest research methodologies are being
employed to obtain a better understanding of the
nature and extent of biotic stresses to crops in a
range of agroecological zones and production
systems. This will ultimately support the devel-
opment of advanced technologies for a sustain-
able increase in crop yields at the farm level in
Search WWH ::
Custom Search